ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2021
Level of Orthographic Knowledge Helps to Reveal Automatic Predictions in Visual Word Processing.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The ND250 indexes a visual-orthographic familiarity effect in visual word recognition: evidence from Chinese components.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Adults with reading difficulties demonstrate selective impairments in the fine neural tuning for print.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Can prediction error explain predictability effects on the N1 during picture-word verification?Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- Early lexical processing of Chinese one-character words and Mongolian words: A comparative study using event-related potentials.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The brain generates predictions about visual word forms to support efficient reading. The "interactive account" suggests that the predictions in visual word processing can be strategic or automatic (non-strategic). Strategic predictions are frequently demonstrated in studies that manipulated task demands, however, few studies have investigated automatic predictions. Orthographic knowledge varies greatly among individuals and it offers a unique opportunity in revealing automatic predictions. The present study grouped the participants by level of orthographic knowledge and recorded EEGs in a non-linguistic color matching task. The visual word-selective N170 response was much stronger to pseudo than to real characters in participants with low orthographic knowledge, but not in those with high orthographic knowledge. Previous work on predictive coding has demonstrated that N170 is a good index for prediction errors, i.e., the mismatches between predictions and visual inputs. The present findings provide unambiguous evidence that automatic predictions modulate the early stage of visual word processing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.